A lot of those are people movers in airports and whatever <2km long.

The list once you exclude that basically consists of

* France, which wanted a niche technology to export and maintain supply domination over

* China, Japan, and Korea, trying to replicate it

* Quebec, which often looks to France for planning inspiration

* Mexico and Chile, which were recipients of French development assistance that included using French suppliers

> Japan trying to replicate it

What a silly assumption. They are not.

There are plenty of rubber-tired metros in Japan. The Yurikamome to Daiba in Tokyo, for example.

plenty is not the same as "a lot in %". There are actually VERY FEW of them, percentage wise, in Japan.

It has the roughest ride of any public transit I took in Japan. Was very surprised.

Also: Nippori-Toneri Liner[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippori-Toneri_Liner

Replicate the industrial strategy, not the technology. Should’ve clarified.

    Replicate the industrial strategy, not the technology.

I still don't understand what this sentence means. Can you provide an example?

The East Asian economic miracles are all heavily export dependent. Part of the pillar of this industrial strategy is to heavily support emerging technologies, because they can then gain economies of scale, first mover knowledge, etc. This has happened before, with technologies like plasma screens, LCDs and LEDs, and is now happening in China with solar panels and electric cars. They have developed such advanced manufacturing capabilities so quickly and are now almost insurmountable market leaders, or at least major competitors.

Railways are also part of this strategy. China, Japan and Korea all export railway products from high speed rail to subways to monorails, and so in this context rubber tired metros are another niche technology to get an edge in. Note that this strategy doesn't always work; no one outside of these countries is very interested in maglev trains, for example.

---

The other part of this is development finance. Countries that do not have know-how with big infrastructure projects often look to international institutions to build projects and secure financing. And part of the deal is that if you take French money you must spend it on French suppliers, and this is true for basically any country doing this kind of lending, so basically the lender is getting both interest payments and spending towards its economy. The Chinese and Japanese compete a lot for railway projects in particular; Japan built the Taiwanese HSR and the Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City metros, China is currently building high speed rail in Thailand and Laos, etc.

That smacks a lot of "aside from half the world, whoever is using this technology?"

Is it? Airport people movers are extremely niche.

Even in the countries where they exist, rubber tired metros are niche.

In a list of all metros, "recently constructed metros" will be a niche category

You can't retrofit rubber wheels easily so of course compared to all metros as a new technology it will be rare

The Chinese have nearly doubled the metros built in both number and mileage in the last two decades. And pretty much none of those are rubber tired either.

Rubber tired metros are also a niche in new metros.

The Paris Metro lines using rubber tires are almost all retrofitted (line 1, 4, 6 and 11, only line 14 was operated with rubber tired trains from the start).

Retrofitting actually has some advantages for old lines with short station distances, tight curves and steep gradients, whereas new lines can be planned with the limitations of rail technology in mind.

Those benefits have eroded a bit over time. Rail vehicles have become pretty good at acceleration and deceleration, with acceleration often being limited due to passenger comfort. Similarly high(er) grades of 8%-10% are now quite possible with high-performing vehicles.

8-10% Woah: Where? Tokyo's Toei Oedo (circle) line is considered steep by modern standards and has special cars with "linear induction motors" that can traverse up to 5% grade.

Wikipedia claims reason for the linear motor on the Oedo line was a smaller loading gauge and therefore smaller tunnels required.

And generally speaking 5 % wouldn't be considered very steep at all by modern standards. Gradients up to 4 or even 5 % weren't uncommon even on older rapid transit systems dating from a century ago, and for modern multiple units I'd regard 4 to 6 % as about par for the course.

And in hilly terrain, a number of systems definitively go beyond that into the 8 – 10 % range, including some new built systems (e.g. the light rail systems in Stuttgart, Tenerife and Jerusalem).